“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Muhammed,” said our president fatuously, while pretending that a video tape made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had somehow contributed to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. Nakoula remains in a federal prison for posting that video in violation of his parole on bank fraud charges.

In Britain, after Muslims beheaded a British soldier — a husband and father — in broad daylight on a London Street, theDaily Mailreports that a man has been arrested and charged for making anti-religious (presumably anti Islamic) remarks on Twitter.

“People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious,” said the detective inspector on the case. Fatuously.

In Sweden, Muslims have been rioting, burning schools and cars, for nearly a week. Almost all news reports refer to these Islamic thugs merely as “youths,” and many are blaming the Swedes for “inequality.” Likewise fatuously.

In light of such Islamic violence — and in light of such fatuous, mealy-mouthed cowardice and appeasement in response — I think it only fair to post comedian Steven Crowder’s incredibly rude and equally hilarious smackdown between Jesus and (Not) Muhammed. Billy Hallowell over at The Blaze reports Crowder’s been receiving death threats over it. Let’s hope he stays safe and lives to laugh another day. The future, I very much hope, belongs to crazy clowns like him.

Cut Muslims some slack. You can't conquer most of the 7th-8th C. civilized world between India and Casablanca without breaking a few eggs. And have you ever tried to write a manual on the fly about managing those conquered populations? I didn't think so. Attacking walled cities isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially without siege engines. Therefore a certain level of intimidation is understandable. "Submit or die" is easier than storming ramparts. I mean, have you ever seen the castles at Rhodes and Malta?

In some Muslim enclaves of enlightenment even today, the age of consent is 9. I think they tell them about Santa Claus at 10, and how they regret SC died before they could kill him, and how the North Pole is actually hell.

Don't forget Muslims passed on the knowledge of Aristotle and Socrates - after they plundered the repositories they were in and wiped their hind ends with the parchments.

And remember the original Arabs who started all this were overturned and ruled by their own slaves and the people they colonized for most of that history. They were only finally freed in 1918 by giant armies of one guy named T.E. something. Before that they were wearing Turkish fezzes in Medina, which they ceased to own almost as soon as they left.

(Apologist for Islam) Islam is really a peaceful religion; it’s just that it has been hijacked by a radical and violent element.

(Skeptical Listener) No! The problem with Islam isn’t that it has been hijacked; the problem is that there is something about Islam that makes it so easy to be hijacked by such radical and violent elements.

(Observation 1) Every society has its share of violent, misogynistic, hurtful and etc. people, a number of who will always try and bend their religion to serve as a cover, excuse or justification for their behavior. As a result, all religions have had their fringe cults and sects that have acted out in violent and/or other anti-social ways; that’s just a sad fact of human nature. But Islam, of all of the world’s major religions, seems to be the one most troubled by this problem, while at the same time; the more moderate (more correctly: passive) element in the religion of Islam is seemingly powerless to stop this co-opting from happening.

(Observation 2) It doesn’t matter what verses of the Bible or Koran one chooses to emphasize, or how one may try to interpret them. The ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not a proper Christian or Muslim response is the lives and works of Jesus or Mohammed themselves. Jesus was above all, a man of peace, while Mohammed was anything but a man of peace.

A Christian may try to use scripture to justify or incite others to violence, but because Jesus himself would not have acted in that way, their words will never attract more than a handful of listeners.

But it is the converse that is true for Islam. While there may be many within the Muslim religion that want to live peacefully with their neighbors, Mohammed himself did not live that way. As a result, the voices of the “moderates” carry no weight with the community of Islam as a whole. After all, how can one Muslim, with any authority, tell another not to do what Mohammed himself did do? It’s not that the moderates can’t or won’t speak out against the radical element, it’s that the prophet Mohammed, by the example of his own life, left them with no voice to speak out with.

(Conclusion) That’s why Islam is not, never was or can ever be trusted to be a “religion of peace”. Because Mohammed himself was not a peaceful man and by the example of his own life, he has left the door wide open for the more violent element in any community or society, in which Islam is the dominant religion, to turn Islam into a tool to justify their violent actions against others.

In other words, Islam, as a religion, can’t be any more “peaceful” than, as a man, Mohammed himself was .

Try the first through the 19th, and in some places it is still that way. The official line, from the early Fathers through (not including) Vatican II, was "Jews are evil people both in general and individually, and they are out to get you, but don't kill them". Guess what happened then?

Which is why I can't buy the line that Islam is inherently evil or must be "reformed". If the churches could reinterpret their doctine without rerwriting it, so can Islam.

It is, however, not likely to happen soon, thanks to a large extent to Liberal Westerners who validate them.

Waxwing, you're a trip. Not sure what you're about, but bless you anyway.

Crowder's right. He might well get himself dead, too, so God bless him. If people like him and Pam Geller get offed, we'll know that this thing has gone up to the next level.

That Muslim fanatics are nuts is beyond dispute. Why are they nuts is question we average Americans are either not interested in or consider irrelevant. In a sense some of these people, the Iranians in particular, have a legitimate beef.

BP took 90% of their oil profits in the early 20th century, and when in 1948 the Iranians suggested a 50-50 split, which the Arabs were enjoying under US development in Saudi, the Brits said no and tried to orchestrate a coup, which they managed to do with US help in 1953. None of this was brought up during the 24/7 coverage of the Iranian hostage crisis in '79-'81.

Here's some recent reading I've been doing which helps me understand what the Muslim world is going through: A Peace to End All Peace, The Looming Tower, All The Shah's Men, Guests of the Ayatollah, Captive in Iran.

A lot of Muslims don't like the way things are going, either. When the author of Guests of the Ayatollah posed in front of a street mural of Khomeini, a passing young man said, "Why do you want to have your picture taken in front of that a**hole?" Robert Kaplan thinks a strong Iran, with repaired relations with the US, is in our interest.

Ralph Peters thinks that we are seeing the disintegration of the Muslim world as the artificial borders the Western Powers drew after WWI are finally breaking up. He thinks this is a world historical time in Islam and I think he's right.

There will be more bloodshed, and even more, when we in the West start fighting back these terrible attacks we are now seeing in the UK and the US. Because we will have to fight back. Might be time to get that concealed carry permit.

Cut Muslims some slack. You can't conquer most of the 7th-8th C. civilized world between India and Casablanca without breaking a few eggs. And have you ever tried to write a manual on the fly about managing those conquered populations? I didn't think so. Attacking walled cities isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially without siege engines. Therefore a certain level of intimidation is understandable. "Submit or die" is easier than storming ramparts. I mean, have you ever seen the castles at Rhodes and Malta?

In some Muslim enclaves of enlightenment even today, the age of consent is 9. I think they tell them about Santa Claus at 10, and how they regret SC died before they could kill him, and how the North Pole is actually hell.

Don't forget Muslims passed on the knowledge of Aristotle and Socrates - after they plundered the repositories they were in and wiped their hind ends with the parchments.

And remember the original Arabs who started all this were overturned and ruled by their own slaves and the people they colonized for most of that history. They were only finally freed in 1918 by giant armies of one guy named T.E. something. Before that they were wearing Turkish fezzes in Medina, which they ceased to own almost as soon as they left.

If the hard left thinks that they can align themselves to Islam and survive, they are dumber than I can imagine. They may think that they are in common cause with the jihadis, but should the jihadis win, the atheistic, materialistic left would be the first to be killed. Nothing the jihadis hate worse than effete, over intellectualized lefties.